Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

My primary interest in competitive 40k was the time I would spend list building, investigating and arguing merits of builds and units.

When people post lists that are "non competitive" to the forums I have no idea what kind of feed back I can give. If the list is not meant to be competitive what makes it a good vs a bad list?

In a non competitive meta what is the point of saying this unit is better than that unit for the same point cost or under X or Y circumstance? What exactly do we talk about on the forums? Fluff?

GW is not only killing the tournament scene it is going to reduce the relevancy of forums like this.

I guess you can keep talking about that time you rolled x number for x action which lead to x outcome, up until you realize that 40k is just turning into one really big game of expensive Yahtzee anyway.

Well, there's that whole modelling and painting angle, as well as fluff discussions. And pretty much everything else that isn't hating one some new cheesy build.

There's still background/fluff as well as painting and modelling given that those two are the main basis' of the game that gives it longevity compared to more well-thought through (rules-wise) and competent rule/game sets.

However, given that some of the recent fluff has been going a little stupid in some areas (Horus Heresy stretching far beyond what it should have been, ruining guys like Ollanius Pius) this may not be a good thing.

On the plus side we always have guys like LightKing popping (or I guess spamming) up in the Background forums and give everyone a whirl on the facepalm and rage train

There will always been competitive play. People took a game like Super Smash Brothers which is like the ultimate beer & pretzels party game and made it into a soul-suckingly unfun super-competitive affair. (Final Destination, no items, Fox only... etc)

 j31c3n wrote:
There will always been competitive play. People took a game like Super Smash Brothers which is like the ultimate beer & pretzels party game and made it into a soul-suckingly unfun super-competitive affair. (Final Destination, no items, Fox only... etc)

Says a guy who has no clue about just how deep Super Smash Brothers Melee is, and how fun and creative competitive play actually is.

Here's a hint: people don't play a game for 13 years with any level of dedication if it's not fun.

Tactics still matter even in casual games (casual doesn't mean you don't give a damn about winning), but the discussion will be less dogmatic. Instead of seeing the same old 'take x, it's statistically the best' you'll get 'take x if you like y or want z, but take a if you fancy b'. There will be a lot more freedom in the discussion, rather than less of it, as more people will be open to ideas that are less 'optimised' but more varied and potentially more fun.

I would describe myself as among the most causal of players, but that doesn't mean I give no thought to my lists or tactics. I don't just throw together any odd unit without thinking of how it's going to work, and there's always something new I want to try. That's what the forums would come to be. Rather than people asking 'what's the best for this role'? it will be 'will this work?' or 'what's the best plan for this list?'. To be honest, I'd be happy to be rid of the 'competitive' ideals, as when every discussion ends with 'more vendettas' or 'Anything that isn't taudar is terrible' it gets very boring.

 Fafnir wrote:
Says a guy who has no clue about just how deep Super Smash Brothers Melee is, and how fun and creative competitive play actually is.

Here's a hint: people don't play a game for 13 years with any level of dedication if it's not fun.

I don't play WAAC in any game. Testosterone-laden dominance rituals do not interest me. I play to have fun my way and to tell a story with the aid of a rule system and dice rolls. I'd prefer to have a fluffy army with a fun backstory that stands out from others on the tabletop and is memorable in the minds of my opponents than a dead killy WAAC table-the-enemy-on-turn-three force.

Other people find WAAC gameplay and tournament settings to be fun. That's great for them, and I wish them luck. I don't like that stuff.

You could always talk about OTHER games.

Sometimes people need to be reminded that GW didn't invent wargaming and don't control all aspects of it, and whether they choose to acknowledge it or not, there are other games out there.

blackjack wrote:
My primary interest in competitive 40k was the time I would spend list building, investigating and arguing merits of builds and units.

When people post lists that are "non competitive" to the forums I have no idea what kind of feed back I can give. If the list is not meant to be competitive what makes is a good vs a bad list?

In a non competitive meta what is the point of saying this unit is better than that unit for the same point cost or under X or Y circumstance? What exactly do we talk about on the forums? Fluff?

GW is not only killing the tournament scene it is going to reduce the relevancy of forums like this.

I'm not even sure where to begin. There are so many angles to this game and hobby to discuss that I have run a Podcast about them for nearly four years.... We only occasionally discuss tactics/tournaments and usually don't focus on "this unit is better than that unit". In fact, we actively AVOID talking about that and yet we still have one of the most popular 40k Podcasts out there.

In the words of Kuato... "Open your miiiiinnnnnnnd"

blackjack wrote:
My primary interest in competitive 40k was the time I would spend list building, investigating and arguing merits of builds and units.

Emphasis mine. Your primary interest is list building. Other people have primary interests in painting, modelling, converting, fluff and also actually playing the game.

If the game goes super casual and list building becomes less important, your primary interest will diminish. Your mistake is thinking your primary interest is everyones primary interest.

blackjack wrote:
My primary interest in competitive 40k was the time I would spend list building, investigating and arguing merits of builds and units.

When people post lists that are "non competitive" to the forums I have no idea what kind of feed back I can give. If the list is not meant to be competitive what makes it a good vs a bad list?

In a non competitive meta what is the point of saying this unit is better than that unit for the same point cost or under X or Y circumstance? What exactly do we talk about on the forums? Fluff?

GW is not only killing the tournament scene it is going to reduce the relevancy of forums like this.

I don't know to be honest . On polish forums people talk about painting and converting , selling stuff and playing which is mostly list or tournament talk . What I see on western forums is people claiming the game is B&P , But in the end people always end up saying stuff like escalation , FW, D weapons aren't unbalanced , riptide spam and screamer stars are . Which may or may not be true . What I ask myself is where do those B&P players face those armies , when they all claim they never play against WAAC , which somehow is another word for tournament or good , list or players. So why do they need those counters in the first place . But that question is dwarfed in the face of a bigger one . If the B&P crew claims they play for the narrative and not to win and stuff like that , why do they have so much problem with losing ? I have never seen someone with a tournament say , that he won't play another one , because he is an baby eating fluff player , who dared to paint squad markings on all of his marines.

Remember, a tactics discussion can be more than about the latest internet list or what to spam from the latest codex.

Still, tactics require some competitive form of meta to actually exist. So long as one player is trying to win over another, a competitive metagame will develop, and tactics and strategies around that.
It's a natural evolution of play, and while the internet can aid in reaching such a point faster, copy/pasta and spam lists are going to be the end point in any even slightly competitive meta for a game as poorly designed as 40k.

When you design a game around removing player agency (through an over-emphasis of using dice for player choices and outcomes over informed decisions and actions made by players) and encouraging the use of specific broken units, you end up with a game that can only naturally become as stagnant, degenerate, and ultimately boring as 40k.

 Fafnir wrote:
Still, tactics require some competitive form of meta to actually exist. So long as one player is trying to win over another, a competitive metagame will develop, and tactics and strategies around that.
It's a natural evolution of play, and while the internet can aid in reaching such a point faster, copy/pasta and spam lists are going to be the end point in any even slightly competitive meta for a game as poorly designed as 40k.

When you design a game around removing player agency (through an over-emphasis of using dice for player choices and outcomes over informed decisions and actions made by players) and encouraging the use of specific broken units, you end up with a game that can only naturally become as stagnant, degenerate, and ultimately boring as 40k.

Guess it doesn't say much for me then that I don't find 40k boring.

 Fafnir wrote:

 j31c3n wrote:
There will always been competitive play. People took a game like Super Smash Brothers which is like the ultimate beer & pretzels party game and made it into a soul-suckingly unfun super-competitive affair. (Final Destination, no items, Fox only... etc)

Says a guy who has no clue about just how deep Super Smash Brothers Melee is, and how fun and creative competitive play actually is.

Here's a hint: people don't play a game for 13 years with any level of dedication if it's not fun.

SSB was unequivocably dedicated to the fun party brawler concept. The main creator has expressed his hatred of the very existence of competitive Smash. It still exists. His point isn't wrong, even if his understanding of the scene is.

Nerds will always compete, even if it's just an argument of the hulk vs superman.

People will always want to win, no matter what state the game ends up in.

Which is funny, since Sakurai considers Melee, the most competitive version of the game, to be the finest game in the series, as far as quality of mechanics involved is concerned, and something he wouldn't replicate not for the sake of the competitive factor, but rather because of the work involved being all-consuming. It's also quite clear that he doesn't really know much about the competitive communities that play the game in the first place.

The funny thing is that in his hubris, and desire to make Brawl uncompetitive, he wound up making the most slow, campy, and boring game in the series.

Now, the competitive scene may not be the core audience for the game, but they're the people who are going to keep the game going for well over a decade. The competitive community is why 130,000 people were concurrently watching the Evo stream of a game that is 13 years old. And just because a game is competitive doesn't mean it can't cater to casual play (see: Melee).
I can go to Melee friendlies every week, and play with 20-40 people. I can go to tournaments every month or so, and play against 70 people, and our community could be considered a small one. There's a huge variance in skill level and competitiveness (personally, I'm one of the less skilled players), but every player is having fun with a competitive style of play, and there's a very strong sense of community.

To that extent, Sakurai is wrong. Because for someone who is so much for making games built around simple 'fun,' he seems to do a lot to ignore a lot of the fun going on with people who appreciate his games in a way that no casual player ever would.

Forcing a dichotomy between competitive and casual play is a false one. At the end of the day, it's simply players enjoying different aspects of a game for different reasons, and taking offense at players for enjoying something in a different way than you for something that causes no harm is quite pathetic, and intentionally going to alienate a specific group is even worse.

Tactical discussion is pointless if you're assuming your opponent is going to be tactically incompetent.

There is a difference, I think, between bringing fluffy units and subsequently trying to win, and being tactically incompetent.

 Fafnir wrote:
Which is funny, since Sakurai considers Melee, the most competitive version of the game, to be the finest game in the series, as far as quality of mechanics involved is concerned, and something he wouldn't replicate not for the sake of the competitive factor, but rather because of the work involved being all-consuming. It's also quite clear that he doesn't really know much about the competitive communities that play the game in the first place.

The funny thing is that in his hubris, and desire to make Brawl uncompetitive, he wound up making the most slow, campy, and boring game in the series.

Now, the competitive scene may not be the core audience for the game, but they're the people who are going to keep the game going for well over a decade. The competitive community is why 130,000 people were concurrently watching the Evo stream of a game that is 13 years old. And just because a game is competitive doesn't mean it can't cater to casual play (see: Melee).
I can go to Melee friendlies every week, and play with 20-40 people. I can go to tournaments every month or so, and play against 70 people, and our community could be considered a small one. There's a huge variance in skill level and competitiveness (personally, I'm one of the less skilled players), but every player is having fun with a competitive style of play, and there's a very strong sense of community.

To that extent, Sakurai is wrong. Because for someone who is so much for making games built around simple 'fun,' he seems to do a lot to ignore a lot of the fun going on with people who appreciate his games in a way that no casual player ever would.

Forcing a dichotomy between competitive and casual play is a false one. At the end of the day, it's simply players enjoying different aspects of a game for different reasons, and taking offense at players for enjoying something in a different way than you for something that causes no harm is quite pathetic, and intentionally going to alienate a specific group is even worse.

I completely agree with this. Brood War also persist to this day because of competitive play. Pushing the beer and pretzels angle and denying competitiveness gives you Mario Party, where you need to release a new one every year just to keep people aware it exists. I think *that* game stands as the exemplar of what happens if you actively attempt to make competitive play impossible. You get the guy who wins every minigame and makes every correct decision losing because he landed on a space that made him swap star count with the guy that's been spending more time on his phone texting his girlfriend than paying attention to the game. I've known almost no one that finds 'because random gak invalidates everything' such an appealing component of play that they play the same Mario Party endlessly.

There is always some semblance of competitiveness, unless people like getting tabled or just don't care whether or not they win. If they don't care whether or not they win at least a little bit, they probably aren't going to be playing. On the off chance they are, they are probably just interested in trying different builds just to gain understanding of how they'd work.

I think those claiming competitiveness in the game is gone or is going away are simply crying wolf over nothing. Again. If you REALLY need some convincing, go play some Yahtzee and tell me there is not a single competitive person there.

Don't worry, it's a wargame of futuristic battles, there is a built-in competitive nature to the game. No need for the QQ.

Or we could talk about cute kittens and flowers and how to make the world a better place

Making the world a better place is easy: eradicate everyone who disagrees with me.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
There is a difference, I think, between bringing fluffy units and subsequently trying to win, and being tactically incompetent.

That's very true, and it's unfortunate that when people try to use a fluffy unit as best they can, they are met with responses of "Lol that unit's trash, use X instead it completely outclasses it."

But using fluffy units competitively is still a type of competitive discussion. I'm talking about the extreme end of the spectrum from WAAC. The guys who will hiss and spit at you just because you've attended a tournament.

Furthermore, there's no need to min/max or be super tryhard when using fluffy units if your opponent is not competitive. Ergo the topic is still redundant UNLESS the presence of competition and min/maxing exists.

If 40k goes full non-competitive the community will finally get off its collective buttcheeks and actually make a long-overdue tournament format, complete with a proper restricted list and not namby-pamby comp.

Considering that no one on the forums have ever seemed to actually like the game in the first place, I expect things will basically stay the same.

If GW plc stops pretending to write a rule set and army lists that are suitable for pick up and play games.
Then people will stop buying GW rule and codex books.

And the world would be a better place, because we would have to use PROPER RULES , written as instructions to play the intended game.And army lists written to provide fun balanced pick up games.
And so players would just play games, and not argue over what they think the rules are supposed to be/mean.

An we could talk ABOUT OUR WAR GAME HOBBIES,not the fething 'GW hobby' of buying gak from GW.

Let me ask a question here, to understand the OP's original point.

There's a lot of talk about 40k being a beer and pretzels game. Is this the opposite of competitive? Is this really to mean that the game is meant to be enjoyed in itself, without an understanding of a competitive arena around it?